People v. Cain, 498 Mich. 108

Background

In a multi-defendant murder trial, the clerk administered the voir dire prospective-juror oath instead of the juror’s oath at the start of trial; no contemporaneous objection was made.
Defendant Cain was convicted and sentenced to life without parole; he raised the unsworn-jury claim for the first time on appeal.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, treating the failure to give the proper juror’s oath as a structural error requiring a new trial.
The prosecution appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which granted review to decide whether an unpreserved failure to properly swear the jury is a structural error mandating reversal.
The Supreme Court applied the Carines plain-error framework for unpreserved claims and focused on the fourth-prong discretionary inquiry: whether the error "seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings."
The Court concluded that although the incorrect oath was plain error, the record showed the jurors were repeatedly instructed about their duties, had taken voir dire oaths, and were repeatedly reminded of their obligations; therefore reversal was not warranted and convictions were reinstated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unpreserved failure to administer the juror’s oath requires reversal as a structural error	Prosecutor: although the wrong oath was given (plain error), the fourth Carines prong was not met because the record shows the oath’s purposes were otherwise fulfilled; no new trial required	Cain: failure to give juror’s oath is a structural Sixth Amendment error that presumptively satisfies plain-error review and requires reversal	Held for prosecution: error was plain but did not "seriously affect" fairness, integrity, or public reputation under the fourth Carines prong; convictions reinstated
Proper standard for unpreserved constitutional error	Carines plain-error test applies; courts must conduct a fact-specific inquiry on the fourth prong	Defendant urged that structural status should presumptively satisfy fourth prong	Held: Carines governs; structural designation alone does not automatically satisfy the fourth prong—courts must assess whether the record contains countervailing factors
Whether alternative record features can cure omission of juror’s oath	Court: jury voir dire oath, repeated instructions, and trial safeguards can serve the oath’s purposes and mitigate prejudice	Defendant: those substitutes are insufficient because the juror’s oath is uniquely indispensable and its absence is categorically serious	Held: substitutes here were sufficient; the jurors demonstrated awareness of duties and solemnity and the omission did not seriously affect proceedings
Role of precedent treating unsworn-jury error	Defendant relied on People v Allan and other authorities holding unsworn jury undermines integrity	Court criticized Allan for not performing case-specific fourth-prong analysis and declined to adopt a per se rule	Held: Allan’s per se approach was rejected; courts must apply fact-specific fourth-prong review

Key Cases Cited

Carines v. People, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (Michigan plain-error test for unpreserved claims)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (federal plain-error framework and discretionary relief for unpreserved errors)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (case-specific plain-error review; cautions against per se approaches)
Vaughn v. People, 491 Mich 642 (2012) (structural-error analysis and case-specific fourth-prong review under Carines)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishing structural errors from trial errors)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (analysis of structural-error consequences in plain-error context)
People v. Allan, 299 Mich App 205 (2013) (Court of Appeals decision treating failure to administer juror’s oath as structural—criticized for lack of case-specific fourth-prong inquiry)
People v. Pribble, 72 Mich App 219 (1977) (describing the juror’s oath as protecting the right to an impartial jury)
United States v. Turrietta, 696 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2012) (federal appellate decision finding record can mitigate unsworn-jury error)